Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(f) The Collector of Central Excise(Appeals) disposed of the appeal of the conversion unit against the Asstt. Collector's order dt. 22nd Oct., 1986, by his order dt. 29th April, 1987, directing the Asstt. Collector to determine the assessable value on the basis of the value of comparable biscuits produced/manufactured by other manufacturers of the same locality/town/city during the relevant assessment period. In pursuance of this appellate order, the Asstt. Collector passed an order dt. 23rd March, 1990, wherein he held that the assessable value of the conversion unit should be taken at prices of comparable goods produced by M/s. Super Food Products with certain abatements. Having been aggrieved by the order of the Asstt. Collector, dt. 23rd March, 1990, the Department preferred appeal before the Collector of Central Excise(Appeals), who by his order dt. 16th July, 1991 again set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector, dt. 23rd March, 1990, and remanded the case back to the Asstt. Collector for de novo proceedings, and for passing a 'speaking and specific' order after comparing the prices of M/s. Super Food Products and other manufacturers of the same locality/town/city during the relevant assessment period. The Asstt. Collector has accordingly passed a fresh order dt. 17th April, 1992, holding that M/s. Super Food Products is found to be closest to the assessee in comparison of other biscuit manufacturers existing at the relevant time, and hence the prices of products manufactured by M/s. Super Food Products are found comparable and that the assessable values of the products manufactured by the assessee can be fixed based on comparison with the prices of Super Food Products. He accordingly directed the Superintendent of Central Excise to confirm/raise the demand based on the price-lists which were approved by the Asstt. Collector on 23rd March, 1990, but which were set aside by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on 16th July, 1991.

5. Disputing the conclusion of the lower authorities that the reduction of Central Excise liability of the conversion unit has come into existence when the Collector of Central Excise(Appeals) passed the order on 16th July, 1991, the learned counsel, narrating the history of the dispute with regard to assessable values between the conversion unit and the Central Excise Department, submitted that the matter of valuation of the biscuits manufactured by the conversion unit was under dispute with the Department from 1982, and the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) by his order dt. 16th July, 1991, had reiterated the earlier order of his predecessor, dt. 19th April, 1987, and directed the Asstt. Collector to determine the assessable values under r. 6(b)(i) by virtue of r. 7 taking into account the prices of other manufacturers of the same locality as ordered by his predecessor. He set aside the assessable values determined by the Asstt. Collector on 23rd March, 1990, on the basis of M/s. Super Food Products, and remanded the matter for de novo proceedings and for passing a speaking and specific order in the light of the discussion in the said order of 16th July, 1991. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that no funality can be attached to the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), and the dispute with regard to assessable values has not ended with the Collector(Appeals) order of 16th July, 1991, since in accordance with the said order, further orders were expected to be passed by the Asstt. Collector. For that matter, it is submitted that since the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) has set aside the order of the Asstt. Collector passed earlier, and remanded the matter to him for de novo consideration and for passing a speaking and specific order, the entire matter was thrown open before the Asstt. Collector, for conducting fresh proceedings and for passing fresh orders in accordance with the directions of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the date of order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), viz., 16th July, 1991, is crucial for determination of the date of remission or cessation of liability, even if any, since the said order has not brought about any finality with regard to the assessee's liability to the conversion unit on account of Central Excise. In this view of the matter, he submitted that the lower authorities were not justified in holding that the order of the Collector (Appeals) dt. 16th July, 1991, having been passed during the previous year relevant to this appeal, the liability written back has correctly been assessed in the year under appeal.

"19. In view of the findings as above, I remand back all these 9 cases to the concerned jurisdictional Asstt. Collectors for de novo proceedings for passing a speaking and specific order as discussed above."

From the above order and direction of the Collector (Appeals), it cannot be said that the order of the Collector (Appeals) has determined the actual liability of the conversion unit towards Central Excise duty or cessation in respect thereof. When the Collector(Appeals) merely remanded the matter to the concerned Asstt. Collector for de novo proceedings for passing speaking and specific order' it cannot be said that the order of the Collector(Appeals) is the end of the matter, since de novo proceedings in accordance with the directions of the collector(Appeals) were expected to be initiated by the Asstt. Collector to whom the matter was remanded. For that matter, even the consequent order of the Asstt. Collector dt. 27th April, 1992, on the basis of which entries in the books of account have been made to write back the liability cannot be said to have brought about the cessation of the liability, because on the basis of the said order of the Asstt. Collector, the Superintendent of Central Excise was expected to pass the necessary consequential orders giving effect to the order of the Asstt. Collector, to determine the actual liability of the conversion unit towards Central Excise duty and arrive at the figures of additional demand to be raised or the refund to be made to the conversion unit. Such order of the Superintendent of Central Excise in the instant case has been passed only on 18th/19th May, 1993, a typed copies of which are filed before us at pages 31 of the third paper-book of the assessee. It is only upon the passing of this order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, the bonds and bank guarantees executed by the conversion unit towards the provisional liability for Central Excise duty, would be released after adjusting the actual liability determined, and it is only at that stage when the Superintendent of Central Excise passed the order dt. 18th/19th May, 1993, that the cessation of liability of the conversion unit, and the consequent cessation of contractual liability of the assessee towards Central Excise duty, if any, can be said to have taken place.

17. At this juncture, we may refer to the decision of the Calcutta High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative in support of the Revenue's stand that the order of the Collector (Appeals), dt. 16th July, 1991, is the crucial one to determine the time of cessation of the liability of the assessee. In that case, the assessee-company had claimed and was allowed a deduction of the sales-tax liability amounting to Rs. 17,78,867 in respect of four quarters ending 31st Aug., 1963. This liability was fastened upon the assessee on the basis of an ex parte order dt. 16th Aug., 1967, passed by the CTO. The assessee did not make any provision for this sales-tax liability in its books of account, but the claim was made based upon the ex parte order passed by the CTO on 16th Aug., 1967. Subsequently on an appeal filed by the assessee, the Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, by his order dt. 4th Aug., 1973, set aside the ex parte order. On there facts, the Hon'ble High Court held that there being no appeal against the order of the Asstt. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes setting aside the ex parte assessment order, and as such the said appellate order having become final, the sales-tax demand raised originally of Rs. 17,78,767, was no longer in existence and had ceased to exist. As such, it was held that the AO was fully justified in bringing to tax the said amount for assessment under s. 41(1) in the asst. yr. 1974-75. In the facts of the case on hand, further proceedings in pursuance of the order of the Collector of Central Excise(Appeals), by way of de novo proceedings were expected to be taken up, and as long as the ultimate liability of the conversion unit towards Central Excise liability is not determined and the bonds and bank guarantees upon such determination of the ultimate liability are not released for the excess provided for, if any, it cannot be said that the proceedings have reached finality, and the statutory liability of the conversion unit and the contractual liability of the assessee ceased to exist. In this view of the matter, the ratio laid down in the case of Ashoka Marketing Ltd. (supra), has no application to the facts of the case before us.